I Am the Three Legged Stool
The King Prawn ·
Aug 16, 2011 at 4:53am
I've heard the conservative coalition described as a three legged stool. The three legs of this coalition are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and defense conservatives. I am all of those. I can think of no conservative position from the three areas that I do not adhere to. Does this make me some kind of super conservative? How do those of you who totter on two legs or balance on one approach the evaluation of candidates? Can someone who is a defense conservative accept a candidate who is as hawkish as McCain but who spends like "The One" and votes on social issues in lock step with Pelosi? I always see the three as inseparable, but I have been wrong before.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Yes, and it means you should be subscribing to the following: Investor's Business Daily, National Review and Weekly Standard. And a little dose of Human Events would round out this assortment nicely. :)
Dec '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
NR is the only one I subscribe to, but I do read WS and HE online. Of late most of my time has been on Ricochet, though. My wife threatened to ground me from it the other day.
Nov '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Goodness knows, my husband has threatened the same!
I do seriously recommend IBD to help nourish that "fiscal conservative" side. IBD reminds me of the WSJ before Murdoch got his sensationalist paws on it.
Mar '11
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
KP: I don't want to overstate the case, but I think that you--and that frankly many of us--are heirs to a legacy and a tradition of thought that took some time to build.
At the philosophical and theoretical level, it is not at all clear that these three positions are inherently inseparable. George Nash, for example, points out that the history of conservatism in America is largely a history of several key figures attempting to harmonize--both philosophically and politically--positions of traditional morality and free market capitalism. Bill Buckley is a towering figure in this regard, but there were many other players at National Review, the Public Interest, and the Claremont Review that dedicated many long hours to harmonizing these positions.
Which raises the practical question: if these positions are not inherently inseparable, what keeps them together in the political sphere? The answer is in part the machinery of American politics (two party system, first past the post, electoral college, etc), but it is also in part the a legacy of successful conservative politicians like Ronald Reagan and other major conservative leaders who brought the ideas of this harmonized conservatism to the mainstream.
Dec '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
I am a fiscal and defense conservative and a social libertarian. I evaluate candidates based on the most important issues of the day(in my mind). Back in the Bush days its was defense and spending were about equal with education being a close third. Today? Its all about spending and taxes. If a candidate is offering to finally stop our rampant spending I will put up with just about anything else from them.
So in order I evalutate my canadiates based on
1)Spending
2)Taxes
3)Education
4)Defense
5)States Rights
Jul '11
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Sure, they're inseparable, BUT, as we can see here, there's a lot of wiggle room in the definitions. The trick is to hang together on the big picture, and wiggle at the edges.
May '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
By which you mean, before Murdoch made it the #1 paper in the nation.
The three legs are compatible, but by no means necessary within the same person (and don't nobody go telling me a stool falls over with two legs; it's an analogy, not an actual physical stool). All three are necessary to build a viable coalition. But those who support only two of three are also needed to put us over the top to victory, and should not be insulted or labeled RINOs (an acronym begging to be hit on the head with a shovel until retired).
The definitions are also fuzzy. Say someone is pro-life, would legalize marijuana, and thinks gay marriage is a pointless issue that makes advocates for either side look silly (just an example; not talking about anyone specifically). Or believes that we should have a strong military, be willing to strike against Iran, Syria and Libya, and should pull out of Afghanistan ASAP (again, this is a hypothetical person whose initials are not KS). Where would he fit?
Jul '11
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Interesting question. I'm not sure who first described the "three-legged stool" picture of modern conservatism, but we sure haven't heard much about it since Reagan left office. Most Republicans since then seem to have tried to succeed by selecting their favorite leg and carving out a niche on the Right rather than bring together all three strands (Huckabee, for example, while being a strong social conservative, was anathema to most free marketers).
My own path has not always included all three legs. I found inspiration in my politically formative years (early 80s) from Barry Goldwater. No stronger defense or economic conservative could one find, but he was not particularly sympathetic to social conservatives, famously exhorting Christians to "kick Jerry Falwell in the ass". It was not until I had children of my own that I began to appreciate the arguments that government has a legitimate role in actively protecting the family unit from corrosive social trends. So I found the third leg relatively late.
That's why the "big tent" is so important - natural allies can engage constructively even if not in complete agreement and thereby foster a more cohesive movement.
Edited on Aug 16, 2011 at 9:07amSep '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Kennedy Smith
The definitions are also fuzzy. Say someone is pro-life, would legalize marijuana, and thinks gay marriage is a pointless issue that makes advocates for either side look silly (just an example; not talking about anyone specifically). Or believes that we should have a strong military, be willing to strike against Iran, Syria and Libya, and should pull out of Afghanistan ASAP (again, this is a hypothetical person whose initials are not KS). Where would he fit?
Good points. I am one of those who isn't a socon or a big defense hawk (used to be, though) yet I am staunchly conservative. I believe the three legs can be symptoms of conservatism but not the cause of conservatism. Huckabee, for example, is a soCon but a big government spender. Guilliani is a hawk but a social liberal. Neither of these two are conservatives IMO because their policies will unduly infringe on people's freedoms whether economic or personal.
Conservatism is about individual rights and freedom, and if you believe in programs that deviate from the sanctity of the individual and providing maximum freedom, that isn't a conservative position.
Jun '11
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Nyadnar17: I am a fiscal and defense conservative and a social libertarian. I evaluate candidates based on the most important issues of the day(in my mind). Back in the Bush days its was defense and spending were about equal with education being a close third. Today? Its all about spending and taxes. If a candidate is offering to finally stop our rampant spending I will put up with just about anything else from them.
So in order I evalutate my canadiates based on
1)Spending
2)Taxes
3)Education
4)Defense
5)States Rights · Aug 16 at 5:21am
+1! I am socially libertarian as well, so Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry find a great deal of importance in issues with which I disagree. But gay marriage and drug legalization, for instance, are just not important enough to me to be a deciding factor. It probably is because I'm not gay and I've never had an interest in using illegal drugs. What's really important to me is shrinking the government down to a reasonable size. Say, to 25% of its current size.
Jan '11
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Three points make a plane. So, if one leg is short or long, the stool still stands. The seat might need to be gimbaled. . .
Dec '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
For me it comes down to the bigger principle: liberty.
Milton Friedman said that economic freedom is necessary condition for individual liberty. If a person is not free to exert his own labor in the manor he chooses and is not free to enjoy the fruits of his labor in the way he chooses, then he is not free. Also, see Locke.
My social conservatism makes sense mostly when considering where we would end up without it. A saying I heard about gays in the military makes the case. An old salt once said, "When I came in the navy it was forbidden and now it is tolerated. I hope I retire before it becomes mandatory." The liberal position may start as freedom for some, but inevitably results in a loss of individual liberty (of conscience or thought usually) for the others. (Two hundred words prevent me from developing this further.)
Defense conservatism is a no brainer. Bad men want my cookies. Big guns keep the bad men away. Liberty may be the state of nature for man, but it is hardly the norm of societies. Those who don't have it don't want others to have it either.
Sep '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
The King Praw
Defense conservatism is a no brainer. Bad men want my cookies. Big guns keep the bad men away.
Problem as I see it is that Defense conservatives advocate selling some of our cookies to protect other peoples cookies who will not protect their own. If all we were doing is protecting our cookies we would be spending half of what we are now.
Dec '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
liberal jim
The King Praw
Defense conservatism is a no brainer. Bad men want my cookies. Big guns keep the bad men away.
Problem as I see it is that Defense conservatives advocate selling some of our cookies to protect other peoples cookies who will not protect their own. If all we were doing is protecting our cookies we would be spending half of what we are now. · Aug 16 at 10:09am
You have a valid point. I suppose that's where the conservative part of defense conservative comes in. One of my greatest disappointments with Bush was his call to stop policing the world that came right before he stepped up our roll as Team America.
Nov '10
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Kennedy Smith
By which you mean, before Murdoch made it the #1 paper in the nation.
The WSJ is allowed to include internet subscriptions in the analysis of its' growth statistics. In actuality, the WSJ print edition subscriptions went down by 3% during Murdoch's first year at the helm and continue to fall precipitously. The difference between the two? Print readers look for the unique and exclusive focus upon economic matters; the onliners react more to headlines found in the New York Post.
Mar '11
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
I think people who identify themselves as fiscal conservatives and suggest Republican candidates shut up about social issues lest they frighten the independents have caught an infection from the left.
The left always presents one, or a few, policies that can be sold to the public at the particular time and, as far as possible, conceal the rest of their program because they know the people would reject them if they got a good look at the whole picture.
I believe this tactic will not work for conservatism and will be self-defeating. Unless they are shown a whole picture people will not appreciate that often the best thing to do is to do nothing. (like Silent Cal).
No conservative could favor stripping defence to make more money available for vote buying, but I believe that when it is necessary to deploy the military they should hit had and fast, do as much damage as possible, and get out quickly. It should be made clear the exercise can, and will, be repeated if needed. The biggest mistake of 2003 was stopping at the Iranian border.
Apr '11
Re: I Am the Three Legged Stool
Conservatism, IMO, is a healthy respect for one's limitations.
Government cannot make a people moral. The best we can hope for is that government doesn't enable immorality.
A strong defense should deter aggression but we can't turn A-stan into a western liberal democracy - that's a waste of lives and money. A strong defense doesn't need to garrison Germany.
Fiscal conservatism will succeed only if we can discourage dependency on the government (see above). As Mark Steyn might say, government is big enough to give things away but it's not big enough to take them back (or stop people demanding them).